aliceinwoolfland Posted May 29, 2018 Share Posted May 29, 2018 Thought this may be an interesting read https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/may/28/shes-good-but-shes-big-my-years-as-a-fat-ballerina?CMP=fb_gu 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fromthebalcony Posted May 29, 2018 Share Posted May 29, 2018 Thank you for sharing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan McNulty Posted May 29, 2018 Share Posted May 29, 2018 Ian had included it in this morning's links. It's always worth having a look there! 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melody Posted May 29, 2018 Share Posted May 29, 2018 At a size 8, she probably wasn't all that different from the Ballets Russes-era dancers. But then along comes George Balanchine with his need for stick-thin female dancers and costumes that reveal every last square millimetre- of the body, and that turned into the new normal. Didn't Frederick Ashton say something about the modern standard of ballerinas who didn't have tits, or something equally elegant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lizbie1 Posted May 29, 2018 Share Posted May 29, 2018 12 minutes ago, Melody said: Didn't Frederick Ashton say something about the modern standard of ballerinas who didn't have tits, or something equally elegant? I know what you're referring to, and it's one of my favourite ballet quotes 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lizbie1 Posted May 29, 2018 Share Posted May 29, 2018 About that article: my perception is that the standard for the size of female ballet dancers allows for less variety in the US than in the UK (Ashton's comments notwithstanding) - presumably because Balanchine's influence was/is much less. On a related note, I was watching a YouTube video of the Mariinsky corps in Swan Lake the other day: the ranks of identical very tall, very slender physiques, identically costumed, gave the unfortunate impression of humanoids rather than humans: beautiful but too intimidating to be alluring. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pas de Quatre Posted May 29, 2018 Share Posted May 29, 2018 Remember a US size 8 is a UK size 12. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliceinwoolfland Posted May 29, 2018 Author Share Posted May 29, 2018 I assumed it was a UK8 as the article is in a British newspaper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pas de Quatre Posted May 29, 2018 Share Posted May 29, 2018 We can't know for sure, but as it is all about her life and training in North America that is how I understood it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Macmillan Posted May 29, 2018 Share Posted May 29, 2018 It was originally from a US, New York, publication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loveclassics Posted May 29, 2018 Share Posted May 29, 2018 2 hours ago, Pas de Quatre said: Remember a US size 8 is a UK size 12. I was about to make the same comment. Having been to quite a few insight evenings, I would say few dancers in the UK companies are larger than our size 8. Perhaps some of the taller ones are a 10 but generally they have very slender frames. I've also noticed that even the male dancers become very 'streamlined' after a few years as a principal or first soloist. I always thought it was because their busy working schedules gave them little time to eat. A working day from 10.30 a.m. to around midnight (allowing time to remove makeup, change and get home after a performance) is pretty full-on. Even though only the corps work nearly every performance, the more senior ones have to learn new roles, participate in the education and teaching programme and also find time to keep fit, get physiotherapy etc. It's not a life for weaklings! Linda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LinMM Posted May 31, 2018 Share Posted May 31, 2018 If you are 5ft 8ins and a UK size 10 or 12 you would be blessed with a good figure that's for sure!! However that taller size for a ballet dancer ( which is why there are so few in the end at this height.....some yes but not many in reality) means you would have to be very much on the thinner side as you have to be lifted by a male dancer! That extra leg length does make you heavier even if you are not fat!! In the ballet world the taller dancers will have that body type which has the smaller body frame too. I think people who want to dance professionally have to be realistic.....you just cannot be that heavy for reasons above ....it doesn't mean you cannot be a very fine dancer though ......just that it's not that practical if you are weighing more than about 9stones to be floated around the stage!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clara_f Posted June 14, 2018 Share Posted June 14, 2018 I wonder though if as male dancers also get taller and stronger (Aran bell is 6'3 and reece clark and hugo marchand must be the same which wasn't the norm before either) whether we will see taller female dancers who consequently have a bigger dress size than someone who is 5'2... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pas de Quatre Posted June 14, 2018 Share Posted June 14, 2018 The actual weight of a female dancer is only going to vary by a few kilos (pounds) whether tall or small. Quite a small percentage of the overall weight, and so it doesn't really affect how easy a dancer is to lift in most cases. Much more important is how the dancer being lifted (usually female in classical but not always) works to support her own weight and contribute to the process! 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now